Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums (http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/index.php)
-   1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks (http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/forum28/)
-   -   89 cam and motor swap need some advice! (http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1330809-89-cam-and-motor-swap-need-some-advice.html)

brandon mauldin 08-15-2014 08:07 PM

89 cam and motor swap need some advice!
 
So I picked up a 302 roller motor the other day with only 60,000 miles on it for 250$! I'm gettin it ready to go in my 89 f150 on 42s so I figured while I got the time and got it out why not freshin it up a bit and give it a little more ummff! Well so far I picked up a set of gt40p heads and and I wanna add a mild cam, I don't want anything major it'll still be on the speed density system and I do drive it on and off the road quite a bit. Iv been lookin at the comp XE264HR cam and it seems to be pretty much what I'm lookin for. Question is will this cam alone work with stock gt40p heads or am I gonna need to change springs/lifters/rocker arms.. Ect ect..? I'd like to keep them stock if possible and also I'll be running long tube headers what kinda gains will this set up give me?? Thanks!

Conanski 08-16-2014 08:20 AM

That will run on SD but I think it will be pushing the limits of the system It would be a good idea if you installed a wideband O2 sensor to keep an eye on the Air/fuel ratio, if it goes lean at higher rpms you can try an adjustable FPR to raise fuel pressure a little from stock.

As for the heads, I don 't believe the stock springs will support the lift that cam generates so an aftermarket spring setup will be needed. No need for anything but stock rockers and pushrods however.

F350 1990 08-16-2014 08:39 AM

Your hard efforts may be wasted on that Speed Density system.

brandon mauldin 08-16-2014 04:27 PM

Well on comps website it says that cam should be used with 1.7 rockers and I believe that the stock ones on gt40p heads are 1.6.. ? So if I use it with the stock rockers it'll bring the lift of the cam from .544 to like .512...right? So would I still need new springs? and second I read everywhere people say stay with a lsa of 114* with speed density but this cam has a lsa of 112*.. Would that cause a problem?

brandon mauldin 08-23-2014 09:47 AM

Well iv got the cam in and now my pushrods seem too short.. And also since I'm using the stock 1.6 rocker arms with the cam will I still need to upgrade valve springs? I really want to stay with the stock ones if possible..

rla2005 08-23-2014 11:02 AM

According to Camp Cams, the answer to your spring question is:
http://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.ford...0095e33755.jpg

No....

35-349-8 - Xtreme Energy? Hydraulic Roller Camshafts, Computer compatible (E.F.I.) with O.E. hydraulic roller cams 1985-95

brandon mauldin 08-23-2014 11:07 AM

I knew if I went with the 1.7s if have to upgrade but I was hoping that with 1.6s I could get away with it. If I decide to go 1.7s anyway why are some good springs? Comp recommends some dual springs but I'd rather stay with some single trick flows or somthin that will work with my heads how they are

Conanski 08-23-2014 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon mauldin (Post 14588285)
Well on comps website it says that cam should be used with 1.7 rockers

No it doesn't say that.. it says it can be used with 1.7 rockers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon mauldin (Post 14588285)
and I believe that the stock ones on gt40p heads are 1.6.. ? So if I use it with the stock rockers it'll bring the lift of the cam from .544 to like .512...right?

Yes that is right on both counts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon mauldin (Post 14588285)
So would I still need new springs?

Yes, and you need to check that they don't experience coil bind at full lift.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon mauldin (Post 14588285)
and second I read everywhere people say stay with a lsa of 114* with speed density but this cam has a lsa of 112*..

What cam did you buy, the XE264HR-12 or the XE264HR-14? You should have bought the -14.

brandon mauldin 08-23-2014 11:12 AM

I bought the xe264hr-12.. Would you recommend I stick with the stock 1.6 rockers and just upgrade springs and push rods or get the 1.7 rockers and upgrade springs and pushrods?....

Conanski 08-23-2014 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon mauldin (Post 14606142)
Well iv got the cam in and now my pushrods seem too short..

You are using roller lifters with that cam right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon mauldin (Post 14606142)
And also since I'm using the stock 1.6 rocker arms with the cam will I still need to upgrade valve springs? I really want to stay with the stock ones if possible..

Stock springs may "work" but they are pretty weak and will allow valve float at higher RPMs, stiffer single springs are my suggestion as doubles will most likely require machineing of the spring seats.

brandon mauldin 08-23-2014 11:18 AM

Yes I'm using the stock roller lifters they were in great shape. The motor was out of a 89 grand marqui. And what are some springs you would recommend?

Conanski 08-23-2014 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon mauldin (Post 14606288)
I bought the xe264hr-12.. Would you recommend I stick with the stock 1.6 rockers and just upgrade springs and push rods or get the 1.7 rockers and upgrade springs and pushrods?....

1.7 rockers are wasted on these heads as they don't flow any more past 0.500" lift, so you're just spending money for no gains.

brandon mauldin 08-23-2014 11:20 AM

So upgrade springs get longer push rods and call it a day?

Conanski 08-23-2014 11:47 AM

You shouldn't need longer pushrods, what made you think the ones you have a too short?

brandon mauldin 08-23-2014 12:00 PM

I put the cam in last night and literally the push rods are wayyy loser than they were with the old cam like I can grab the lose ones wiggle them around and even up and down a little


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.